It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
^ Back to Top
The MI6 Community is unofficial and in no way associated or linked with EON Productions, MGM, Sony Pictures, Activision or Ian Fleming Publications. Any views expressed on this website are of the individual members and do not necessarily reflect those of the Community owners. Any video or images displayed in topics on MI6 Community are embedded by users from third party sites and as such MI6 Community and its owners take no responsibility for this material.
James Bond News • James Bond Articles • James Bond Magazine
Comments
Indeed, I'd say only Golden Gun is a disappointment. Moonraker at least has the agent in Brazil to make up for Goodhead, and View has the pilot of HMS Love Boat.
Sigh...
No doubt!
You know Bond is the protagonist of the rest of the movie, right? And that he's the one controlling the car?
The film adds an action sequence that fleshes out the car Fleming introduced and does far more with it than he did--hence the fact that Bond films 50 years later are still paying homage to it. It also sets up Bond's capture and defeat by Goldfinger in a more powerful and immediate way than by simply having Oddjob apprehend him--the fact that Goldfinger manages to wreck the glorious Aston shows the audience he means business. Adding action that accentuates the drama and imagery of the original novel is always an improvement. Very few Bond films have done so as well as GF. By contrast, the inserted helicopter/boat chase in FRWL is just there because the filmmakers knew the book was short on explosions.
And I have not found those explanations convincing.
The 60s films are certainly a strong lot, but GF is a more assured piece of film-making than DN, contains more thrills than FRWL, and has more iconic moments than OHMSS (though I still consider OHMSS the best Bond film). The Kentucky section of GF happens to contain the assault on Fort Knox and fight in the cathedral of gold--that certainly does not come short against the last act of TB (an interminable underwater ballet) or YOLT (a bloated semi-retread of Goldfinger's climax--Bond racing against the doomsday clock and needing to fight a henchman before he can disable the villain's device while armies clash in the background).
Good point re. TMWTGG. Do like Maud Adams though, but she got to play a Bond girl again in OP – along with plenty others, as the above picture shows!
Absolutely agree. Some elements could definitely have been better, but that doesn't keep me from being entertained throughout.
Whatever do you mean? Bond knows she works for SPECTRE and his bedding her is his attempt to win her to his side, especially since he's doing everything he can while working against the clock to find the bombs, not just getting in a dalliance, which is why she makes the cutting remark that clearly bruises his ego and puts him in immediate danger.
Besides, she's an original character with no book roots, an audience seeing it for the first time would have no reference as to her intentions as they would've with Pussy.
I mean that the filmmakers obviously intended that Fiona would stay evil, since she's a femme fatale (a character stereotype audiences would be familiar with) and therefore evil and irredeemable. She's the disposable bad girl and Domino is the consolation prize good girl (there was a similar pattern in Dr. No with Miss Taro and Honey). And whereas Bond tells Pussy that Goldfinger is mad and will kill thousands, he doesn't even bother telling Fiona about the evils of Spectre. He sleeps with her because she's there.
There's also a familiar genre expectation at work: truly evil characters tend to get punished in genre fiction. So evil Bond girls generally aren't redeemed. In AVTAK Mayday--who has already shown herself as a repeat murderer--switches sides only because Zorin betrayed her, not because she had sex with a geriatric Roger Moore. Fiona is also a murderer, whereas Pussy is a pilot.
Of all the quirky aspects of Bond fandom, the almost religious cult worshipping of the DB5 is one of the things I'll never understand. The car does have a classic look to it (especially on Swiss alpine roads) and is the kind of vehicle you expect a sophisticated character like James Bond would drive. My interest With it however ends there. Wether it has oil spill, machine guns or a cartoonish Walt Disney ejector seat I couldn't care less about, even if I was compelled to try! For me that car chase is a pretty mundane affair as a consequence. A good action scene should have Bond demonstrate some capabilities and wit. I am much more interested in seeing him outsmart his opponents than seeing him casually push buttons. 'Lazy' is reaally not an innapropriate way of describing it.
It is obvious none of us will be able to convince the other, as our personal opinions and tastes don't allign. Your line of reasoning takes a lot for granted: That I should obviously find said scene tense and suspensefull, that find certain elements more iconic than thoset in OHMSS, that I find 'the cathedral of gold' to be a mesmerizing visual, that I obviously bow to the alter of the "glorious Aston's" incredible gadgets... I don't, and therefor your points are in no way convincing to me.
1.You can plainly see it's Bond own car that he won in CR.
2.The drive to Skyfall is beautifully shot,showing the car in all its glory,as is the scene with the silent stealth of Silva's men walking all around it to the house.
3.Bond uses the machine gun to make it a fairer playing field against Silva's first wave of men.
4.Silva knows what the car means to Bond,hence after the helicopter shoots it to pieces,he looks straight back to the house,smiling,looking for a reaction from Bond.
5.Bond's face shows what the car means to him,pure anger,and stimulates him to work even harder with the gas cannisters .
This is another reason why SP gets on my bloody nerves,not only does it say Silva is part of SPECTRE,which is Mod Edit,he worked for himself,you can see that in the scene with Bond on the island,but also Q mentions about bringing the DB5 back in one piece,not bring back one piece.
The car was never MI6's property in SP,you can tell it's Bonds own car,ffs.
SP really tries to damage SF's excellent reputation,but its such a bad film it doesn't succeed.
Probably this option.
That is why I find the joke with the Lotus Esprit in FYEO so brilliant as is the car chase in that movie,it steps away form the gadget laden cars for a lovely drive in the country. (it is one of the more original car-chases in the franchise.
Agree. I would go as far as saying it is the best car chase in Bond.
Totally agree. It's no doubt my favourite car chase of the franchise as well. It's fun, exciting, and required some skill by Bond himself as well.
This is a primary reason I'd rather not see the DB5 for a few films, and certainly not during Bond #007's run.
I love the bloody thing!
Agreed on all points. The overuse of gadget cars is a tribute to the influence of GF, though in this case the influence hasn't been always for the best, since most attempts to recreate the winning formula come off as too formulaic. But for better and worse GF set the template of the series and remains the "gold standard Bond," as a 2014 article in the Boston Globe put it.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/msolomon/2018/08/21/aston-martin-is-remaking-the-classic-james-bond-goldfinger-db5/#7b4399e74378
And also one of the most influential films ever made.
The DB5's use in SF was well done in my opinion (despite the obvious wankery element). The incorporation of the car's gadgetry seemed organic to the plot. The DB10's in SP on the other hand reeked of amateur hour to me. Too predictable.
That's why I'd rather have old gadgets (if slightly modernised) reused in new ways, than brand new far fetched gadgets. I'd love to see the briefcase again as well. And SPECTRE's gadgets as well.
It is a tricky balance. There sure is a mayhem on here with complaints when certain formulaic traits we have come to expect are scrapped. (The gunbarrel is a great example). But I definitely agree with you. Gadget laden cars in particular is something I can live without. On the contrary I would prefer not to see them at all.
Yes. Only geeks here notice such things.
According to Aston Martin these new cars won't be 'road legal'
Not spending $3.5m on a car to just look at it!!!